Why Access Matters: The Community College Student Body
Why Access Matters: The Community College Student Body
Christopher M. Mullin
AACC Policy Brief 2012-01PBL February 2012
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This policy brief was supported in part by Lumina Foundation. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Lumina Foundation, its officers, or employees. Lumina's goal is to increase the percentage of Americans who hold high-quality degrees, credentials, and certificates to 60% by 2025.
I appreciate the input I received on earlier versions of the manuscript. I take responsibility for the final product, however; any errors are my own.
About the Author
Christopher M. Mullin is the program director for policy analysis at the American Association of Community Colleges.
Preferred Citation
Mullin, C. M. (2012, February). Why access matters: The community college student body (Policy Brief 2012-01PBL). Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.
For more information, contact
Christopher M. Mullin Program Director for Policy Analysis American Association of Community Colleges One Dupont Circle NW, Suite 410 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-728-0200, ext. 258 E-mail: cmullin@aacc.nche.edu
Copyright
2012 ? American Association of Community Colleges Photocopying for nonprofit educational purposes is permitted.
CONTENTS
Executive Summary
4
Introduction
5
More Students Access Higher Education Than Commonly Realized
5
Redefining the "Traditional" Student
6
Age Trends at Community Colleges: A Shifting Student Body
6
Despite Age Shifts, Community College Students Not "Traditional"
7
A Home for Students of Color
7
An Affordable Start
8
Body Building
8
Maintaining a Focus on Access
9
Moving Forward
10
Notes
11
References
11
Appendix
14
Why Access Matters: The Community College Student Body American Association of Community Colleges--Policy Brief 2012?01PBL
3
Why Access Matters: The Community College Student Body
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
More and more Americans today acknowledge the value of community colleges to students and community partners. An important reason for this awakening, among many others, rests on the growing realization that reported rates of success for students at community colleges are understated and misleading. In addition, the increasing focus on public returns on investment may be incentivizing colleges and universities to be more discerning about whom they enroll. Needless to say, these changes do not bode well for college access.
With the growing attention the public is paying to community colleges, it is important to remember just whom community colleges serve, noting what is distinctive and what has changed about this population. In this brief, I consider the unique variety of students who are drawn to and served by community colleges.
The magnitude of access is generally understood at the level of fall enrollments. For institutions that enroll students year-round, however, more students access higher education than is commonly realized. At community colleges, for example, referencing unduplicated year-round enrollments increases the number of students accessing higher education by 56%. The magnitude of access is increased even further when noncredit students are included.
Between 1993 and 2009, the student body--as defined by the distribution, not the number, of students--on community college campuses shifted. For instance, students under the age of 18 are increasingly enrolling in community colleges. While the student body is becoming increasingly younger, the characteristics of younger students are not homogenous across all sectors of higher education. Community college students have a greater proportion of students with various risk factors when compared to all of higher education.
These colleges also provide access to nearly half of all minority undergraduate students and more than 40% of undergraduate students living in poverty.
Community colleges are open access and do not, with the rare exception, build a student body. As this brief points out, the open door philosophy not only benefits students attending community colleges, but also benefits other sectors of higher education. Unfortunately, other members of the higher education community may not appreciate this role that community colleges play.
While enrollments continue to increase, there is the concern, among some, that a focus on completion has the potential to influence just who is allowed to take advantage of educational opportunities. In policy conversations, especially those concerned with policies related to access and choice, there is a silent movement to redirect educational opportunity to "deserving" students. This brief highlights some actions that can be taken to ensure that access is not deteriorated.
Policy actors engaged in ensuring the United States has the most educated workforce in the world must remember that all citizens of a nation are included in the denominator of the equation. To ensure the focus on completion does not result in a more restricted student body, the institutions that provide the broadest swath of opportunity must be incentivized to continue providing access. Access to college, for everyone, matters.
4
Why Access Matters: The Community College Student Body American Association of Community Colleges--Policy Brief 2012?01PBL
Why Access Matters: The Community College Student Body
Introduction
More and more Americans today acknowledge the value of community colleges to students and community partners. Perceptions are changing: 71% of the public believes that it is sometimes better to start at a community college than at a 4-year college (Associated Press, 2010). The most expensive is no longer the most valued: 22% of all college students from families making more than $100,000 attend community colleges (Sallie Mae & Ipsos, 2011).
The shift in perceptions is due to a variety of factors. First, students who start at a community college are just as likely to earn a bachelor's degree after transferring to a 4-year college as are students who start at a 4-year institution (American Association of Community Colleges [AACC], 2009). Second, there is a growing recognition that post-college earnings vary as much by type of academic credential attained and subsequent occupation as they do by the level of education completed (Carnevale, Rose, & Cheah, 2011). Third, the public is beginning to understand that current measures of student success concerning community colleges paint an inaccurately unflattering portrait of the colleges. On this last point, it is worth recalling that the Department of Education's congressionally
mandated Committee on Measures of Student Success (CMSS) found, "Although federal graduation rates provide important and comparable data across institutional sectors, limitations in the data understate the success of students enrolled at two-year institutions and can be misleading to the public" (2011, p. 4).
Despite these positive developments, however, the many completion agendas driving higher education policy have often been shaped by, and still rely on, the limited data of yesterday. For example, misleading data in Texas continue to inform one organization's completion agenda (Fain, 2011a). In addition, the increasing focus on public returns on investment may be incentivizing colleges and universities to be more discerning about whom they enroll. Needless to say, these changes do not bode well for college access.
With all the attention the public is paying to community colleges, and their role in helping meet the nation's pressing need to produce more graduates more efficiently, it is important to remember just whom community colleges serve, noting what is distinctive and what has changed about this population. In this brief, I consider the variety of students who are drawn to and served by community colleges.
More Students Access Higher Education Than Commonly Realized
In the fall semester of 1953, just 15% of Americans aged 18 to 24 were enrolled in higher education (Grant & Lind, 1974), a figure that increased to 30% in 1969 and 41% in 2009 (Simon & Grant, 1970; Snyder & Dillow, 2011). College enrollment for 25- to 29-yearolds and 30- to 34-year-olds more than doubled from 1967 to 2009 (Baime & Mullin, 2011). Overall undergraduate fall enrollment in 1967 was 6 million students; by 2009 it had increased nearly three-fold to 17.6 million (Snyder & Dillow, 2011).
This figure captures only fall enrollments, and thus loses a large segment of the community college population. Twelvemonth unduplicated headcount enrollment shows that community colleges served 56% more students in 2008?2009 than they served in fall 2008 (see Table 1). The number of full-time, first-time degreeseeking students at 2-year public colleges (732,392), the indicator used to compute the federal completion rate, includes only about 7% of the community college student body nationally--hardly a representative sample.
Why Access Matters: The Community College Student Body American Association of Community Colleges--Policy Brief 2012?01PBL
5
In addition to these credit enrollments, community colleges also enroll students in noncredit offerings. AACC estimates that 5 million students were enrolled in noncredit programs in fall 2008 (AACC, 2011). There are substantial challenges quantifying noncredit enrollments, however (Van Noy, Jacobs, Korey, Bailey, & Hughes, 2008).
Redefining the "Traditional" Student
Age Trends at Community Colleges: A Shifting Student Body
Changes in the age structure of the higher education student body began as early as the 1970s. A contributing factor to this shift was substantial increased enrollment of women over the age of 35, an enrollment that increased 67.5% between 1972 and 1976 (Grant & Lind, 1979). Undergraduate female enrollment surpassed that of males in 1978 and has continued to do so (Snyder & Dillow, 2011): For instance, women constituted 58% of enrollments at community colleges in fall 2008 (AACC, 2011). The number of men enrolled in higher education as undergraduates remained essentially flat for 25 years, from 1975 to 1999 (see Figure A1, in appendix).
Between 1993 and 2009, the student body--as defined by the distribution, not number, of students--on community college campuses shifted, though not evenly. As illustrated in Figure 1, the student body is becoming younger. Enrollment trends for students aged 25 to 34 and 35 to 50 mirror shifts in the U.S. resident population. For students aged 18 to 24, enrollments have fluctuated,
whereas the distribution of this age group in relation to the general U.S. population remained relatively flat.
All age groups have experienced an increase in the number of students enrolled in fall 2009 when compared to fall 1993 (see Table A1, in appendix). It is important to note the extent to which greater numbers of students under the age of 18 are enrolling in community colleges. In 1993, just 1.6% of the student body was under the
age of 18; in 2009, this group had increased to 7%. This increase is due in large part to programs that provide students with the opportunity to take courses in high school for college credit (Vargas & Miller, 2011). Programs such as Texas' Early College High Schools-- targeted to first-generation college goers, low-income students, minority students, and English language learners--partner community colleges and secondary
Table 1 Undergraduate Credit Enrollment, by Type of Student Count, Comparative Analyses and Sector: 2008?2009
Type of Student Count
Fall 2008b, c
Comparative Analyses
Sector
12-month unduplicated headcount: 2008?2009a
Headcount enrollment
FTFT degree seeking students:
Percent increase in enrollments between Fall 2008 and 12-month unduplicated headcount enrollment
FTFT as a percent of 12-month unduplicated headcount enrollment
Public
Less than 2-year
106,468
67,075 15,452
59
15
2-year
10,452,789 6,693,185 732,392
56
7
4-year
7,237,615 5,951,146 992,922
22
14
Private
Less than 2-year
23,888
11,821
4,444
102
19
2-year
59,253
46,355 10,998
28
19
4-year
2,948,610 2,501,295 487,281
18
17
For profit
Less than 2-year
466,169
263,013 101,699
77
22
2-year
673,785
361,091 114,391
87
17
4-year
1,699,460
942,306 129,096
80
8
Sources: NCES (2011b), Table 74; NCES (2011d), Tables 1 and 18.
Note. FTFT: Full-time, first-time. Public 2-year data differ from those provided by the AACC (2011) because community colleges that offer a bachelor's degree are classified as "public 4-year" by NCES. AACC includes these colleges as community colleges in calculations. a Adapted from NCES (2011b), Table 74. b Adapted from NCES (2011d), Table 1. c Adapted from NCES (2011d), Table 18.
6
Why Access Matters: The Community College Student Body American Association of Community Colleges--Policy Brief 2012?01PBL
schools to allow high school students to earn an associate of arts degree (Texas Education Agency, 2010). Research in nine states in the Southeast found that 8% of graduates at public 2-year institutions took college-level courses in high school and that they graduated in less time than did students who had not taken such courses in high school (Marks & Lord, 2011).
Despite Age Shifts, Community College Students Not "Traditional"
The traditional college student has long been defined as the student who graduates high school and enrolls in college the following fall semester; nationally, 67% of undergraduates are under the age of 25 (Snyder & Dillow, 2011). While this age-based conception of a "traditional" student remains, the characteristics of younger students
Figure 1
Distribution of the Community College Student Body and U.S. Population: 1993 to 2009 (odd years)
60%
60%
Distribution of Community College Student Body Distribution of U.S. Population (Aged 15 and over)
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0% Under 18
18?24
25?34 Age Groups
35?49
0% 50+
1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
Sources: NCES (2011c); Phillippe & Gonzalez Sullivan (2005); U.S. Census Bureau (2002, 2011).
Notes. These values represent the distribution and not total counts of observed populations. As such, what may appear as an incline or decline may be the opposite in terms of actual counts. (See Table A1, in appendix.) Age at enrollment is only reported to IPEDS for odd years.
are not homogenous. A greater percent of 18- to 24-year-olds at community colleges, compared to all other sectors of higher education combined, identified themselves as employees who had decided to enroll in college (20% compared to 9%), students enrolled exclusively part time during the academic year (44% compared to 11%), or students that lived with parents (61% compared to 19%; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2011a). None of these characteristics is associated with the concept of the "traditional" student.
For community colleges, the reality is that, despite having the lowest tuition and fee costs of any sector of higher education ($2,963 for a fulltime, full-year student in the fall of 2011; Baum & Ma, 2011), students need to work: 84% of community college students work and 60% work more than 20 hours a week (NCES, 2011a). Not surprisingly, research has shown that working more than 20 hours a week is a risk factor for not completing (Cook & King, 2007; Orozco & Cauthen, 2009). There are other identified risk factors related to completion; compared to the rest of higher education, these characteristics are found in a greater percentage of the community college student body (see Figure 2).1 Unfortunately, these are not characteristics such as hair color that can easily be changed.
A Home for Students of Color
Since passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Higher Education Act of 1965, higher education has served an increased number and percentage of students of color (see Figure 3). Community colleges have historically enrolled approximately half of all undergraduate students
Why Access Matters: The Community College Student Body American Association of Community Colleges--Policy Brief 2012?01PBL
7
of color (AACC, 2011; Snyder & Dillow, 2011; Snyder & Hoffman, 1992). Community colleges are not just enrolling students of color--they are providing access to success. Between 1989?1990 and 2009?2010, the number of students of color walking across the stage at graduation has increased at a greater pace than has the pace of those walking through the front door and enrolling, while a tremendous, if precisely unknown, number of others continued their studies by transferring to another institution (Mullin, 2011).
An Affordable Start
In 2006, 23.6 million people aged 18 or over were living in poverty (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, Smith, 2007), with approximately 4 million enrolling in higher education as undergraduates during the 2007? 2008 academic year (NCES, 2011a). Community colleges enrolled 1.7 million, or 41%, of all undergraduate students living in poverty in 2007? 2008; approximately one in five community colleges students lived in poverty that year (NCES, 2011a).
The localized focus coupled with the low cost to the students and the focus on access to opportunity make community colleges viable options for those of modest income: 14% of dependent community college students and 35% of independent students had incomes below $20,000 in 2007? 2008 (NCES, 2011a).
Body Building
At many of the nation's colleges and universities, providing access has traditionally been a process by which institutions selected their student body from a pool
of candidates through some type of enrollment management model (Kurz & Scannell, 2006). Some have evolved to include orientation programs that serve to predict whether the student will be successful at the institution. Predictive analytics allow institutions to better understand, within three weeks, the likelihood of success for potential students (Lange & Smith, 2010). While having this information is powerful, what
one does with it is even more powerful. These data could be used proactively to identify students who are likely to struggle and match them with the supports they need to be successful. Alternatively, predictive analytics could be used punitively by dropping students who are likely to be unsuccessful. For example, for-profit institutions have instituted orientation programs to assist in the creation of student bodies more likely to be successful.
Figure 2
Enrollment Distribution of Students With Characteristics That May Adversely Affect Persistence and Attainment, for Community Colleges and All Other Sectors Combined: 2007?2008
Percent of College Student Body
80
70 60
50
40
30
20 10
0
Delayed enrollment
Did not have a high school diploma
Enrolled part time
Were financially independent
Had dependents
Were single parents
Risk Factors
Public 2-year
All other sectors combined
Source: NCES (2011a)
8
Why Access Matters: The Community College Student Body American Association of Community Colleges--Policy Brief 2012?01PBL
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- 9 11 hobart and william smith colleges
- challenges of student engagement in community colleges
- high school counselor and college adviser handbook
- university of wisconsin colleges uw colleges catalog c
- why access matters the community college student body
- using mcat data in 2020 medical student selection
- california community colleges student mental health program
- online learning and student outcomes in california s
Related searches
- why community college is bad
- why community college is better
- why community college is beneficial
- why community college is good
- why should community college be free
- why free community college is bad idea
- why community college is terrible
- why go to a community college first
- why attend community college first
- the community college foundation
- community college student activities
- austin community college student email